ChiroACCESS Article



More Evidence Supporting the Effectiveness of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Cervicogenic Headache



This information is provided to you for use in conjunction with your clinical judgment and the specific needs of the patient.

ChiroACCESS Editorial Staff

  

ChiroACCESS



Published on

March 5, 2010

Text Size:   (-) Decrease the text size for the main body of this article    (+) Increase the text size for the main body of this article
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo
A study published in the February 2010 issue of The Spine Journal added additional evidence supporting the effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SMT) for cervicogenic headache (CGH).  Dr. Mitch Haas and his team at Western States Chiropractic College investigated the differences in dose (8 versus 16 treatments) and between high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation versus light massage in the treatment of cervicogenic headache.  Both interventions were provided by experienced chiropractors.  There were multiple outcomes assessed and the SMT group had clinically significant improvement over the light massage control.  However, there was only a small dose effect difference between the groups receiving eight versus sixteen treatment sessions.

Cervicogenic HeadacheIn that same issue of the journal (see citation below), Drs. Haldeman and Dagenais provide commentary on this research.  They conclude by stating that, despite some weaknesses in the research, “this study represents a step forward for stakeholders considering SMT for CGH.  For clinicians who establish a working diagnosis of CGH that conforms to accepted diagnostic criteria, it appears reasonable, based upon currently available evidence, to consider a trial of SMT.”

Treatment of cervicogenic headache is one of the areas were the evidence is strongest for SMT and chiropractic.  As the number of studies increases and improve, using different patient demographics, different techniques, different doses, etc., the stronger the position of the chiropractic profession becomes in the care of this condition. You will find an extensive discussion of the evidence related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cervicogenic headache here: http://www.chiroaccess.com/Conditions/Cervicogenic-Headache.aspx.

Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Spine J. 2010 Feb;10(2):117-28.

Haas M, Spegman A, Peterson D, Aickin M, Vavrek D.
Center for Outcomes Studies, Western States Chiropractic College, 2900 NE 132nd Ave., Portland, OR 97230, USA. mhaas@wschiro.edu

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials suggest that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is efficacious for care of cervicogenic headache (CGH). The effect of SMT dose on outcomes has not been studied.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of two doses of SMT and two doses of light massage (LM) for CGH.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty patients with chronic CGH.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified Von Korff pain and disability scales for CGH and neck pain (minimum clinically important difference=10 on 100-point scale), number of headaches in the last 4 weeks, and medication use. Data were collected every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the CGH pain scale.

METHODS: Participants were randomized to either 8 or 16 treatment sessions with either SMT or a minimal LM control. Patients were treated once or twice per week for 8 weeks. Adjusted mean differences (AMD) between groups were computed using generalized estimating equations for the longitudinal outcomes over all follow-up time points (profile) and using regression modeling for individual time points with baseline characteristics as covariates and with imputed missing data.

RESULTS: For the CGH pain scale, comparisons of 8 and 16 treatment sessions yielded small dose effects: |AMD|</=5.6. There was an advantage for SMT over the control: AMD=-8.1 (95% confidence interval=-13.3 to -2.8) for the profile, -10.3 (-18.5 to -2.1) at 12 weeks, and -9.8 (-18.7 to -1.0) at 24 weeks. For the higher dose patients, the advantage was greater: AMD=-11.9 (-19.3 to -4.6) for the profile, -14.2 (-25.8 to -2.6) at 12 weeks, and -14.4 (-26.9 to -2.0) at 24 weeks. Patients receiving SMT were also more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain scale: adjusted odds ratio=3.6 (1.6 to 8.1) for the profile, 3.1 (0.9 to 9.8) at 12 weeks, and 3.1 (0.9 to 10.3) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes showed similar trends favoring SMT. For SMT patients, the mean number of CGH was reduced by half.

CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important differences between SMT and a control intervention were observed favoring SMT. Dose effects tended to be small. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Choosing a treatment for cervicogenic headache: when? what? how much?

Haldeman S, Dagenais S.

Spine J. 2010 Feb;10(2):169-71. Epub 2009 Dec 11.

No abstract available.
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo